The Obama administration has extended US support of the International Space Station for another four years, opening the doors for additional research projects and investments.

For fans of NASA and space travel, the past few years has been fairly disappointing. Not only did the organization undergo extensive budget cuts and lose its historic shuttle program, but now the biggest contender for American space colonization might be none other than a reality show. One could understandably worry that the prospects of publicly-funded space travel are rapidly swirling down the drain, but there's support for NASA yet. For example, the Obama administration has promised to extend operations aboard the International Space Station until 2024, ensuring that its research will continue for an additional four years.

The extension itself isn't entirely unexpected. The ISS is already fully funded for another decade while its component parts should last until at least 2028. If support for the station was withdrawn, the alternative would be knocking the $100 billion station into an controlled de-orbit, causing it to crash-land in the South Pacific six years later.

Regardless, the confirmation is exciting for any NASA and government officials seeking investments into space-based research. "This means more jobs at the Kennedy Space Center as we rebuild our entire space program," said Flordia Democratic Senator Bill Nelson. "Now, with 10-year extended life on the station, we process those payloads at KSC, we have the commercial rockets take both humans and cargo to the station. This is a robust future for KSC and our space program."

What's less clear is whether international partners like Russia, Canada, Japan, and the European Space Agency will continue their involvement with the ISS. Bill Gerstenmaier, head of NASA's human spaceflight program, has stated that even if these other countries withdraw their support, NASA will go it alone.

RicoADF:Considering it's the international space station and not American space station I see no reason why the ESA/Russia etc couldn't take over if the US decided to drop funding, it's not yours to destroy.

Probably because almost no other country would have the combination of money and a reasonably robust space program to actually keep it running up there.

RicoADF:Considering it's the international space station and not American space station I see no reason why the ESA/Russia etc couldn't take over if the US decided to drop funding, it's not yours to destroy.

Now that would be funny, wouldn't it? Other countries decide to take control of it, and show America the hell up in regards to space exploration. That's exactly why America would drop it; nevermind the actual reasons, they're there to cover up the fact that America'd be too damn prideful to let someone else show the world that they're not as good at something, especially something as storied as their manned space exploration.

1337mokro:What do you expect of a species that spends several hundred times the amount of money on war than it would need to feed every single member of it's species for a year?

Don't forget lobbying! And advertisement. And reality TV. And presidential campaigns....god damn it, I really didn't want to leave this thread in a "the human race is fucked because people with power and influence aren't doing the right things" mood...

RicoADF:Considering it's the international space station and not American space station I see no reason why the ESA/Russia etc couldn't take over if the US decided to drop funding, it's not yours to destroy.

Probably because almost no other country would have the combination of money and a reasonably robust space program to actually keep it running up there.

Perhaps if the ESA/Russia/Japan had to manage the station without the US the result would be healthier cooperation instead of one partner bossing others around.

Fanghawk: the alternative would be knocking the $100 billion station into an controlled de-orbit, causing it to crash-land in the South Pacific six years later.

As fun as it would be to watch how is this in anyway a realistic alternative?

The world is run by grown up contrary to what stupidity world leaders pull sometimes.

If America pulled the station ether just be left to the other countries (after all it is the international space station, not the fucking American space station) or it would be dismantled and the $100 billion worth of components/matteral recycled in other space projects.

Fanghawk: the alternative would be knocking the $100 billion station into an controlled de-orbit, causing it to crash-land in the South Pacific six years later.

As fun as it would be to watch how is this in anyway a realistic alternative?

The world is run by grown up contrary to what stupidity world leaders pull sometimes.

If America pulled the station ether just be left to the other countries (after all it is the international space station, not the fucking American space station) or it would be dismantled and the $100 billion worth of components/matteral recycled in other space projects.

RicoADF:Considering it's the international space station and not American space station I see no reason why the ESA/Russia etc couldn't take over if the US decided to drop funding, it's not yours to destroy.

Probably because almost no other country would have the combination of money and a reasonably robust space program to actually keep it running up there.

it's been relying on mainly the Russians for flights to and from since 2011...mainly using Soyuz tech...which is nearly 50 years old...and about as "robust" as there is...

the reason it's "the ISS" and not "Space Station Freedom" (as originally proposed by Reagan) is because the US couldn't do it alone either monetarily or practically. most of the modules that make it up aren't even American...not even the core of the thing...which is actually Salyut...

in short don't be so cocky...the US doesn't "own the keys" to the ISS...not by a long shot...